'Did Huntley take cover-up too far?'

by MATTHEW BAYLEY, Daily Mail

Ian Huntley may have displayed "sinister cynicism" and gone "beyond what would have been necessary" in his cover-up of the deaths of Holly and Jessica, the judge at the Soham murder trial said yesterday.

Mr Justice Moses told the jury at the Old Bailey that they must consider why the school caretaker chose to speak to Holly's father, Kevin Wells, to offer his sympathy three days after the girls went missing.

They should also ask why Huntley, 29, removed the dead girls' underwear after dumping their bodies in a remote ditch and setting fire to them.

He warned them to be careful when considering aspects of the cover-up after the girls died in his house.

"What was the approach to Holly Wells's father about? Was it really part of the pretence or does it display a more sinister cynicism?" he said.

"Why did he feel it necessary to cut off the girls' underclothes? Was it an unthinking part of disposing of the evidence or was it because he feared there were some clues?"

Mr Justice Moses was giving the jury directions on the issues they must look at when they retire to consider their verdicts.

He said that although they may be "appalled" by the behaviour of Huntley in disposing of the bodies they must not let any "emotional reaction" influence their decision.

But he added: "It is idle to pretend this is not a tragic case. It would not be sensible for me or even you to pretend that some of the facts are not bound to provoke a reaction."

He went on to warn the jury to think carefully about the evidence of Huntley's girlfriend Maxine Carr as she had "an axe to grind" against Huntley.

The prosecution alleges Huntley was sexually motivated when he lured the girls into his house on Sunday, August 4 last year.

He then murdered them before dumping their bodies, cutting off their clothes and burning them.

But Huntley - who denies the murders - insisted Holly Wells had drowned when she fell accidentally into his bath and that Jessica Chapman died after he covered her mouth in an attempt to stop her screaming.

The judge told the jury that they must be satisfied Huntley had "murderous intent" before convicting him of the charges.

"If you consider his evidence is simply not believable or you don't believe it, then, as I have said, you are left with the sudden deaths of two healthy girls without a credible explanation as to how the deaths came about from the one person who could have explained them to you but, if you're sure he's not telling you the truth, chose not to do so in any way you find believable," he said.

"On the contrary, he chose to destroy the evidence of how those deaths came about.

"In short, if you reject his account altogether and conclude that he murdered Jessica then - but it is a matter for your judgment - you may have little difficulty in concluding he murdered Holly."

He added, however, that if they believed Holly Wells had died accidentally then they could consider a verdict of manslaughter by gross negligence against Huntley. Mr Justice Moses said that the jury should only consider Huntley's lies and deceitful behaviour after the killings as evidence against him if they were sure they were the actions of a murderer.

He told the jury to look at Huntley's account of how he "panicked and froze" when Holly fell into the bath and his subsequent dumping and burning of the bodies.

"You are entitled to consider his account of what happened in the bath tested against his clarity of thought when he drove to (the deposition site at) Wangford," he said.

Mr Justice Moses said that to convict Carr of two charges of assisting an offender the prosecution had to have proved that she knew or believed he had murdered or killed the girls.

Carr - who also denies conspiring to pervert the course of justice - has admitted lying about her whereabouts at the time the girls went missing.